Which Comes First, Belief or Practice?
Douthat’s thesis from 2012 is that institutional Christianity in the United States is in decline, but the United States remains a nation where the majority of the population still claims belief in God. Many of these so-called believers may be church-goers in congregations that are somewhat disconnected from church history. Others are disconnected from any church at all (“spiritual but not religious”). This disconnection from institutional or historic Christianity has led not to a nation of non-believers, but a nation of heretics. Like Manichaeism or Gnosticism, we have now multiple corrupt forms of Christianity. The first part of the book is dedicated to tracing the development of the crisis of orthodox Christianity to the age of heresy that he claims we now experience.
According to Douthat, this decline began in the 1960’s and ultimately led to this decline of orthodoxy and rise of heresy, but also a deep rift in the American Church that might be more palpable today, six years and one Trump administration later. One reviewer claims: “According to Douthat, the response of the left was defined by accommodation, an attempt to hold on to cultural prominence by updating Christian conviction to suit modern tastes. This decision—evident in elements of both Protestantism and Catholicism—backfired as mainline churches saw numbers plummet through the 1960s and 70s. Having traded Christian convictions for partisan causes, little remained to make Christian institutions necessary. Douthat’s conclusion is typically witty and on-point: ‘Political activism wasn’t enough: Why would you need to wash down your left-wing convictions with a draft of Communion wine, when you could take the activism straight and do something else with your weekends?’ (109).
The reviewer continues: “The response of the right, he argues, was different in substance but similar in result. Social shifts of the 1960s, especially the sexual revolution and its legal enshrinement in Roe v. Wade, galvanized conservative Christianity and rejuvenated an evangelical base that was still laboring to move beyond the cultural retreat of the fundamentalist decades. Douthat celebrates the political partnership of evangelicals and Catholics and the ECT concord. He celebrates Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, and their tribe, who reengaged evangelicals with secular culture.”
But in the end this conservative reaction fared no better than liberal accommodation in one crucial respect: ‘the growth and momentum and confidence of post-World War II Christianity was still a distant memory…The awakening that some believers claimed was happening around them was often more evident in their particular subcultures than in the culture as a whole’ (131). At the turn of the century, he argues, there is plenty of vibrant religiosity, but it is powerless and largely irrelevant.”[1]
The author identifies four primary themes of “Bad Religion” within American (heretical) Christianity at the time the book was written. They are each given a dedicated chapter in Part II of the book, “Bad Religion.”
The first has largely to do with the influence of “the Jesus Seminar” and the quest for the historical Jesus of the 1980s-90s. Popular and academic authors like Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman represent for Douthat a perversion of the historical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth, using mysterious and cryptic findings to create conspiracy theories as to the divinity of Jesus.
The second stream of heresy Douthat identifies is the Prosperity Gospel and its many (and sometimes subtle) expressions. From Joel Osteen’s “God wants you to be rich and healthy” to Bruce Wilkinson’s perversion of 1 Chronicles and the Jabez’ prayer to suggest that God wants to bless and expand the believer’s “territory,” which to Wilkinson means basically materialistic comforts and social power. In this section, I wonder if Douthat is being fair to Pentecostals, holding them solely responsible for this heresy.
The third stream of heresy is basically the emotional version of the Prosperity Gospel, which Douthat calls ‘the God within.’ Oprah is the symbol of amorphous, untethered, self-affirming spirituality. As a side note, Oprah cannot run for president because her entire metanarrative would crumble in the first presidential debate. There’s no room for critique or conflict, and no energy for combat (in any form), only positivity and affirmation. It’s impossible to get to the White House without a good pair boxing gloves.
The fourth stream of heresy that Douthat identifies encompasses the previous two even though Douthat separates them. This, of course, is Christian nationalism and the idolatry of the American ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Though it’s true that American values influence the Osteens and Oprahs of the nation, this form of heresy is a bit more pungent. Douthat begins with an attack on Glenn Beck, a fine example of the heresy of the Christian right. But Douthat seeks to be fair by pointing to the utopian dream of Woodrow Wilson, along with the American twist to Christianity from John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson (as examples on the other side of the aisle). Douthat is not one to pull punches on any politician or political party.
In his conclusion, the author finally suggests a way forward to the problem of “Bad Religion” in America, which is quite different than Hunter’s way forward, even though they share similar findings in their research analysis, and likely hope for a similar renewal of Christianity in this nation. Douthat argues in favor of a public Christianity that is “political without being partisan,” that is “ecumenical but also confessional,” that is “moralistic but also holistic, and that is “oriented toward sanctity and beauty.” And it’s here where we see the difference between a “John Paul II” Roman Catholic, and a neo-Anabaptist. Douthat’s solution mirrors his assessment of the problem. A doctrinal problem requires a doctrinal solution. Hunter sees the problem as more a problem of lived reality, and so his solution of “faithful presence” is praxis-oriented.
My concern regarding Douthat’s solutions for today’s world is that we have missed the moment to take his approach. In 2018, it seems impossible to be political without partisan. Douthat’s observations have only exasperated since then. It seems that in all four areas of critique that Douthat identifies in his book, the nation has only gotten worse. Prosperity Churches are still growing and attractive, as is self-affirming spirituality. Douthat would argue that the inclusion of LGBTQ peoples into church leadership and same sex marriages in the church are examples of this self-affirming spirituality and the loss of confessionalism. Even some mainline denominations have taken the work of Bart Ehrman to argue for a church position that denies the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And it’s not even worth mentioning how Douthat’s critique of Christian nationalism has found its way into the White House. It seems that we’re too far from envisioning how Douthat’s solution could work. Add to the exasperations of these heresies the multitude of mass shootings and police brutality in the last six years, and “right beliefs” don’t ring nearly as compelling as the humble, “faithful presence” approach of Hunter, which seems more of an embodiment of the person of Jesus and his way.
Whereas Douthat seems to believe that people “believe” their way into “living,” whereas Hunter seems to believe that people “live” their way into “believing.”
[1] Matt McCullough, “Book Review: Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics,” 9Marks (11/13/12): 2, https://www.9marks.org/review/bad-religion-how-we-became-nation-heretics/ (accessed March 22, 2018).
About the Author
Chris Pritchett
7 responses to “Which Comes First, Belief or Practice?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great post once again Chris! You provided a great summary of the book and a great critique of the reality of where our country is at and the likelihood of his solutions becoming a reality. I’m not sure what the answer is but I don’t think we can go wrong with loving people the way Jesus did and respecting people even if we disagree with them (something I feel the author failed to do in his rude critique of those he was calling heretics)
Hi Chris,
You had me at your title. I have been struggling to think about this recently. Seems to me we have been using the model “Believe, Behave, Belong.” I think Jesus probably would have used “Belong, Believe, Behave” like in the case of Zacheus.
Which do you support, belief before practice, or practice before belief?
Chris,
Love the ending of your post, great thoughts on just how far we have fallen on all arguments. I agree with your assessment of Hunter’s belief. I do find it a much more palpable solution.
Jason
Chris, I appreciate that you brought the Oprah movement into this discussion. I read an interview with her about a year ago, concerning why she has changed her status from “Christian” to “spiritual”. In the interview she discussed events in her life that did not have the outcome she expected, and from those outcomes decided that she could not imagine her “god” responding that way. From that point on, “god” started to evolve into this Oprah-network approved deity, which always lived up to her expectations. When you combine that “god” with Oprah’s audience, well, it is only a matter of time before a new religion as been formed. She promotes particular authors that endorse similar theologies and her “pulpit” is one of the largest in the world.
I know that by resources alone, it would seem a small church in Oregon could not compete; however, God is still the ultimate publicist I know, so I am not worried.
Hi Chris! Thank you for your wise thoughts! Do you really believe it’s too late for Christians to step away from partisan politics? I want to think the pendulum can swing back…maybe I’m idealistic!
Hey Chris, I wanted you to keep going! You’ve set up a great conversation between belief and practice, and given us a hint of where you fall, but I’m dying to hear more.
I did see some overlap between Hunter and Douthat. Where he started writign about the opportunities he sees, and the promise he saw in the emerging church movement hinted at the ideas of faithful presence. I’m not sure Douthat is putting belief over practice, but I do think that he is saying that right practice won’t come out of wrong belief.
Chris, do you think belief or practice comes first? Do they go immediately together? I have been reading Bonhoeffer who seems to take the two together in his statement, “only believers obey , and only the obedient believe.” This is taken from his text Discipleship. He believes it unfaithful to the Bible to say you can have one without the other. I tend to agree.
Do you think we can catch a new moment to take a new approach? Perhaps a bit more like Hunter’s?